Jenn Post 7

Jenn Shea

Due to the highly controversial art produced by Mapplethorpe and Serrano, the House cut the NEA budget by $45,000. It also tried to stop federal funding of ICA and SECCA. It was said that SECCA should be deprived of funding until beauty was represented in a more responsible manner, which was a response to the art of Serrano. In response to these provisions, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “‘Do we really want it to be recorded that the Senate of the United States is so insensible to the traditions of liberty in our land, so fearful of what is different and new and intentionally disturbing, so anxious to record our timidity that we would sanction institutions for acting precisely as they were meant to act? Which is to say art institutions supporting artists and exhibiting their work?’” (Steiner 23) The fear among government officials was that these artists were portraying unfavorable aspects of society or were portraying parts of society unfavorably. For example, some senators believed that Serrano’s “Piss Christ” was a mockery of Christian faith, as we saw in one of the in-class video clips. In addition, Mapplethorpe’s portrayal of homosexual eroticism, according to some, encouraged these acts and thus essentially promoted the spread of AIDS. In general, “federal money, it was thought, should not support the creation and exhibition of ideas that questioned the status quo” (Brookman xv). The Senators believed that what they believed to be distasteful and offensive pieces of “rubbish” should not be supported in any way by the federal government or the taxpayers. Some believed the art should altogether be banned, while others believed that it should be privately funded.

In the Washington Times article Promoting Child Abuse as Art by Judith Reisman, Reisman refers to Susan Sontag’s interpretation of pornography: “‘Like sexual voyeurism, [photography] is a way of at least tacitly, often explicitly, encouraging whatever is going on to keep on happening….to be in complicity with whatever makes a subject interesting, worth photographing—including, when that is the interest, another person’s pain or misfortune’” (Bolton Selections 57). Going by this idea of photography encouraging whatever is portrays, Reisman argues that Mapplethorpe, in revealing children’s genitals in his artwork, is advocating child pornography and predation. In analyzing his photograph of a young girl sitting on steps with her vagina exposed under her dress, Reisman says, “In this case it could be argued that Mr. Mapplethorpe enlists us in the child’s photographic molestation. In fact, the photo advertises the availability of this vulnerable child (and, by extension, all children) for photographic assault and rape” (57). In addition, when referencing the homoeroticism that Mapplethorpe displays in several of his photos, Reisman, going by the misinformed idea that sexual acts between males is solely responsible for the spread of AIDS, questions, “Would his own death from AIDS (commonly an ‘anal recipient’ disease) not preclude (in a national museum) ‘encouraging’ the sadistic acts which, on the evidence, facilitate AIDS?” (58) Going even further, Reisman also refers to Sontag’s idea that one who does not contest the advocacy of such things that go against societal norms and what is acceptable is “ an accessory, permitting ‘whatever is going on to keep on happening’” (57).

It seems like a grand and unjustified generalization to assume that all artists have something to advocate or desire to influence a viewer’s behavior in some way. Why can’t art be seen as a form of self-expression or a way in which to raise awareness or simply evoke feelings? If a person makes a film about the Ku Klux Klan or some terrorist organization, is that person necessarily advocating terrorism or violation of human rights, or could it be that he or she is raising awareness of these issues or is trying to evoke some kind of emotion from the spectator? Although individuals like Mapplethorpe and Serrano may have known that their art would be offensive to some and controversial to many, it seems that their art was more representative of their own values that they wanted to introduce and seemingly not intended to pose a danger to any viewer. Just because someone expresses their own values does not mean that he or she is imposing them on others. As Wendy Steiner writes in Scandals of Pleasure, “What is said in art—like what is said of it—is ambiguous, needs construal, and is interpreted according to the interests of the interpreter. There is no art valued solely for the ideas it contains. Moreover, it is often very hard to tell whether an artwork is registering an idea or advocating it, and by the time one figures that out in a given instance, the idea has often ceased to matter. That is not to say that art is ‘pure form,’ but it is equally silly to believe that art is a bunch of fighting words that should be met with law suits, police closures, and blacklisting. Further, the consequences artists suffer now seem excessive” (37). Much of how art affects a viewer is determined by the viewer himself and how he or she perceives the piece of art. In addition, art may in some way be suggesting some message, but this message does not necessarily impose itself upon the minds of others.

In the New York Times Article Art on the Firing Line by Grace Glueck, Glueck suggests that artists somehow tap into our unconscious by revealing what we do not consciously experience or perceive. In this commentary, she suggests that museums not be punished for displaying such art that is so revealing to the public of its own awareness: “Artists are important to us, among other reasons, because of their ability to express what is deep or hidden in our consciousness, what we cannot or will not express ourselves. And museums are traditionally the neutral sanctuaries—entered voluntarily by the public—for this expression. What we see there may not always be esthetic, uplifting, or even civil, but that is the necessary license we grant to art” (Bolton Selections 59). Although art probably does allow individuals to come to terms with some feelings they did not know they had, the idea of art acting on the unconscious is relatively Freudian and also suggests a sort of ability that art has to subliminally influence viewers. In the field of psychology, the idea for subliminal, that is to say perceived without conscious awareness sounds, words, images, etc to influence conscious behavior is not widely accepted as possible or true to real-life experience.

In addition, it seems unlikely that art, if it were to advocate something, would truly affect behavior considering the evidence specifically against the notion that pornography leads to violent behavior against women. The Commission on Obscenity and Pornography and the Meese Commission found no correlation between the two variables and actually found that pornography enhances a healthy sex life (Steiner 38). For this reason, it seems individuals can only be affected by what they want to affect them. Individuals have control over their own behaviors and their own value systems, even though some individuals may be more vulnerable to outside influences such as art, writing, or the values of others. As Steiner notes, “Artistic meaning, like all meaning, is a matter of interpretation. What the prosecution did not realize is that we react to interpretation; we judge interpretations; there is no such thing as a work that speaks for itself. Obscenity is thus always in the eye of the beholder, and what the beholder sees is subject to influence” (33). Most of the time, when an individual is encouraged to behave according to what he or she sees or hears, that individual already has personal reason for that behavior. Thus, the behavior is not advocated by the art or the sound or whatever other influence, nor does the influence cause a person to act in a certain way; the individual acts consistently with his or her own beliefs, which may be influenced or promoted by art or any other outside influence. It is hard to believe that Mapplethorpe’s art actually advocated the spreading of AIDS or that it caused individuals who had no interest in homoerotic acts to suddenly partake in them. One’s behavior is more often than not mostly due to his or her individual values.

Finally, it seems that if one defines art not by its beauty and ability to be interpreted in different ways but instead by how it advocates or motivates, then an individual who feels passionately about a piece of art is also advocating whatever message or image it might convey. This also seems to mean that simply by teaching something to another person, one is advocating that this idea is what is true and that a person should behave according to the idea. For instance, according to the idea of advocacy. a professor discussing a type of religion through religious symbols would be advocating that religion and asking students to behaving in accordance with the ideals of that religion. As Steiner comments, “What a terrible farce, to stand before a class, impassioned about a work whose political implications one must ignore or deny for fear of appearing to advocate them, whose appeal to desire and passion one must bypass for fear of inciting prurience or justifying rape, and whose aesthetic lineage and form one must downplay or risk appearing a mere aesthete” (39). In this sense, if it were to be assumed that an artist acts always as a propagandist looking to promote ideals and encourage behavior, any individual who felt strongly about such art would in turn be advocating the same ideals. This is reminiscent of the controversy of abstract expressionist art advocating communism and anti-American sentiment during the Cold War.

Visual art is something that anyone can enjoy, because it is simply an image that only requires looking. In contrast, literature is only relative to those who read and those who can use their imagination to develop an image from text. As Steiner notes, many more individuals partake in viewing art than reading: “If average citizens are still reading books, their passions are shifting to the visual media. The Meese Commission, Walter Kendrick notes, recommended that verbal pornography not be controlled because ‘the absence of photographs necessarily produces a message that seems to necessitate for its assimilation more real thought and less almost reflexive action than does the more typical pornographic item’” (42). Another reason art has so much more power on the spectator is because, with photography, the image is so realistic and individuals are more apt to identify with this visual reality. Steiner also notes, “This is the picture that emerges by our day: that photography is intensely realistic and yet transforms reality into art; that it is not quite legitimate as an art and yet is more potent that either painting or literature; and that it exercises its power especially over that fearsome part of the population known as ‘the masses’” (42). Today, photography is so commonly used by individuals that when photographs present shocking or controversial scenarios or scenes, individuals are more likely to feel personally affected. As described in the Bolton Selections, “The photograph as a medium presents the viewer with a certain undeniable reality. It implies that the scene or incident in the photograph took place, whether it was staged or candid…Also, because we are most familiar with photographs through family snapshots, newspapers, magazines, and traditional documentary-style scenes and portraits, seeing allegedly obscene, homoerotic, or blasphemous subjects in photographs makes them especially threatening” (39).

In assuming that art has so much power to influence beliefs and behaviors implies that as viewers, individuals are powerless to control themselves and must fear what will happen when exposed to any type of art. As Steiner noted, it is possible to simply enjoy art and its meaning to each individual, “But one need not literally become what an artwork represents in order to find it good…Despite our knowing the difference between a story and reality, art and real life, we have at times been unwillingly ‘invaded’ by works of art…I have lived through all kinds of virtual horrors without having my response to real-life tragedy blunted….We should not fear art either for corrupting our reality or blunting it. What art can do, and do very well, is show us the relation between what we respond to and what we are, between our pleasure and our principles” (59).